Going public

As my second semester of graduate school looms, I feel obligated to publicize some of my ideas to my department and the university at large. Fortunately our department has a blog that will gain me a bit of publicity within the department. My initial thought for a university-wide initiative is to start a Car-free Tufts organization, that advocates for the removal of motor vehicle traffic from the Tufts Somerville/Medford campus, with the exception of service vehicles. There are surprisingly two through roads the length of campus that are buttressed on one side with parking, and several connector roads between the two. This seems to owe to the fact that the original campus on top of the hill annexed two long residential streets below its west side. Houses were converted to campus buildings or removed for larger academic buildings, but for some reason no one ever thought to remove car traffic from the streets. Though the streets may now be private, there is nothing stopping anyone associated with the university or the public at large from driving the full length of one of these streets. It's certainly not a favored route for speed, but nonetheless there are a steady trickle of cars on each road at a rate of a couple per minute. I suspect these intrusions onto the campus are for pickups and drop-offs and deliveries. I think the vast majority could be eliminated without any real detriment to those doing it and at great benefit to the campus pedestrian and bike population.

To further bolster the cause of the Car-free Tufts organization, there is a shuttle system that shuttles passengers between the center of campus and the Davis Square T stop, using one of the aforementioned roads. This service seems to run once or twice an hour, and supplements two buses that skirt the south end of campus, each on a rather infrequent once or twice an hour basis. Though free, the Tufts shuttle makes use of ancient buses and to me rather needlessly serves only the university and saves users the three minute walk to the end of campus for bus service. I think it would be more efficient to eliminate the private service and dedicate the funds to improving the frequency of pubic service. Also of relevance is that the 2014 Green Line extension will bring a T station to the northeast corner of campus, further diminishing the need for private transport, and increasing the need for a frequent (every 10 minutes) connector bus between the new Green Line station and the Davis Square Red Line station. Thus the Car-free Tufts organization will concern itself with both removing cars from campus and providing frequent public transportation for Tufts and its neighbors.

In addition to being car-free, the campus should also convert these streets (or the city, depending on the owner) to a pedestrian and bike-friendly walking surface. To minimize the complaints of lost parking on the street, which is likely limited to parking permit recipients, the university should take steps to identify who is parking on the streets in order to point them to driving alternatives. I suspect the large garage on the north side of campus could accommodate many of these cars, but the foremost goal is to eliminate overall car use.

On another subject, though slightly related (as always), I've been thinking a lot about my disdain for incrementalism in urban planning. I believe that incrementalism belongs to organic, unplanned growth that results in unique and highly functional neighborhoods, cities, and rural areas. It has no place, however, in regional-scope planning, such as transportation systems, energy efficiency, and agricultural practices. This isn't to say that plans cannot be implemented in increments, as is sometimes needed for technical reasons. The incrementalism I object to is what we see daily in urban planning, where large effort is dedicated to fighting for the smallest of changes because planners feel constrained by politics and economics. One glaring example was a presentation to my "Foundations of Planning and Policy" class by the BRA (Boston Redevelopment Authority) that demonstrated minuscule improvements to Dorchester Avenue in the way of sidewalk widening around intersections, improved street lights, and adding shrubs to the side of the road, rather than envisioning an avenue with cars removed and public transit access dominant. We must do significant and necessary projects to address the dire social and ecological problems of our generation. To think small and make small changes at great cost, with the hope that a small change will lead to bigger ones, is foolish and unaffordable. We must instead train ourselves on big changes with great costs but greater benefits. To do so we must use full cost/benefit accounting, estimating the magnitude of social and ecological costs and benefits to justify monetary cost. For planners and policy makers to do anything less at this point is just busy work, and shows an inability to acknowledge the failure of the institution that has gotten us where we are now.